Money Moral Dilemma: You broke it, would you pay to fix it?

janbanan

Offering to pay for it would be the only decent thing to do.

That it happened at McDonalds or not doesn't make a difference in my opinion. You could expect a bit of mess at your table, but certainly not having hot coffee poured over you.

If you are walking with a hot mug of coffee in your hand you should be careful, regardless of where you are. If you spill, be thankful they are unhurt and pay up.

MrShed

I'm frankly shocked at the number of people/number of arguments saying they wouldnt pay. "But for your actions", that person would still have a fully working laptop. Accidents do happen - agree entirely - but thats not an argument. Of course accidents happen, but it is quite clearly the fault of the person carrying the drink in this case - accidents can happen with someone at fault. You could even go so far as to say that she should have been more careful, HAVING NOTICED the laptop user.

The only reason why people are using the argument appears to be that the item that has been damaged was a laptop, instead of (for example) the persons coat they were wearing, and the argument that the laptop should not be in that location. Even if this were a valid argument(which it is not, although anywhere public is a "risky location", you still should be able to go out and not expect to have a drink thrown over you), then it still doesnt wash - the place has wifi, and so as a direct consequence it is not an unreasonable location to either take a laptop, nor see a laptop.

I think that perhaps the important(and only) way to look at it, is that in a legal sense there is absolutely no question that you would be found liable - it is negligence, pure and simple. The law is not this way "despite" moral obligations, it is this way because of them. Just be thankful that it wasnt the laptop users face(with the subseuquent punitary damage claims) and pay up.

GiveItBack

As someone who travels a lot for work, and needs his laptop to do some of that work, I'm now terrified that someone's going to spill coffee over my (not so expensive but important to me) laptop, and then leggit.

Now it's probably insured through my work, but nonetheless. If I spilled coffee over someone else' lapotp and broke it I'd expect to pay (and struggle to do so), if someone spilled theirs over mine in a perfectly reasonable place to have a laptop, then I'd expect the money too. Be aware, drink carriers, I may now have to wrestle you to the ground to get your details.

flikkerty

no matter how skint - would pay, even if it took years to pay off. My fault, I pay. We all have to take responsibility for our own actions. No one elses fault but mine.

harryhound

jkgray wrote: »

Although I take the point about society becoming more litigious generally, it is not applicable here.

In this situation the coffee-spiller would have been liable 50 years ago, as they would be today.

People often confuse being negligent with moral culpability.

For these purposes, negligence (or more properly breach of duty) simply means the coffee-spiller failed in his/her duty to take reasonable care for others and their property.

Just as we all may lose momentary attention (to err is human!), if that lapse occurred when driving and you bump another vehicle, the law says that you should compensate the owner of that other vehicle.

The law is not there (in this circumstance) to adjudge moral blameworthiness, as most would say 'it could have happened to me'. All the law says is that a reasonable driver would not drive into another vehicle and so by doing so you have fallen below the standard of a reasonable driver.

In this scenario, you are negligent as the reasonable coffee drinker would not fall over their own bag and pour coffee over a laptop belonging to another. The law is not saying it couldn't happen to any of us, it is saying that due to you not exercising reasonable care (eg. not leaving your bag in the way, not looking where you were going, etc.) you caused damage and so you can pay for that damage.

In response to comments made by others, whether you can afford to pay for it is not a relevant consideration. But in any event, legal expenses cover costs no more that £20 as an add on to most home insurance policies.

Thanks for replying with you point of view - I 80% agree with you.
There is a useful observation that "If you have a problem take it to a doctor and you will get a medical opinion, take it to an accountant and you will get a financial opinion, take it to a lawyer and you will get a legal opinion---- ah I nearly forgot, take it to an economist but make sure it is a one armed one --- so he cannot say one the one hand and on the other hand"

However there have been some changes in society caused by changes in the law.
Contingency fee: Now we don't need to ask ourselves if we can afford a lawyer, we just have too worry if the person being sued has money or insurance. (There may well be "can't pay, won't pay people" in Mac Donalds). So is it fair and reasonable that there is one sort of civil law for the prudent and another for the poor/spendthrift? Contingency fee has encouraged an attitude of extracting "protection money" from insurance companies - the very first question that the "ambulance chaser" agencies ask is "are you insured". Insurance is just a way of spreading hugely inflated costs over several years and in the meantime creating stress and anxiety.

Presumably, if the case came to court, it would need to be proved. A couple of days ago, I managed to throw a cup of coffee across a room. I had managed to hook a foot under a table with "fashionable" splayed legs - was that my fault or the table's?

"Got to get an (independent) witness" - does anyone have a clear recollection of what happened? Perhaps some other customer had moved the bag? Perhaps there was already a small pool of slippery spilt coffee? Is there enough evidence of negligence?
Assuming that the coffee has "killed" the lap top, the biggest loss may well be the value of the information/software inside it. Could the owner claim for that or would "bad luck mate you should have taken an extra 5 minutes last night to back it up?" be sufficient defence.
How much would have been added to the cost of a repaired lap top by the time the
claims agent, the lawyer and the insurance company have added their take?
Can the coffee dropper stop the charges racking up by immediately saying, "let us take it now to 'Laptops R Us' to find out the damage"?
Does the coffee dropper have a RIGHT to have the damage examined as a protection against someone upgrading, their in reality old, almost valueless, repairable lap top, to the latest model ?

Finally can I return to the question of balance, raised by the poster who suggested that the lap top owner's mink coat could have caught the flying burger and sauce:eek:

Is it fair and reasonable that the same accident should created a damage cost of next to zero or thousands of pounds, because of the flaunted wealth of the "victim"?
I raise this point because a female relative of mine, phoned in "a bit of a state" after
exchanging "wing" mirrors with a car travelling in the opposite direction. Her damage was 35 GBP at the local scrap yard (and the seller fitted it for that) while the large car travelling in the opposite direction was a new BMW, trying to claim something in 4 figures.

The message seems to be: The rich and sometimes the poor are able to exploit those in the middle, so do a deal with an un-discharged bankrupt, who will agree to take the rap, when push comes to shove?

BigMikeyG

I wouldn't pay for it, as it is likely to be out of my budget range. However I would point out to the person that it is their fault for not having insurance and probably walk away swiftly. If that doesn't work - I'm a big chap and I can be intimediating when I want to be :-) just kidding!

Seriously thou, as I've read in some posts here, it is not my fault that they want to play with expensive things around potentially dangerous liquids. It is different to being smashed by another car at some traffic lights etc. as you have to be on a road when using a car etc etc. but that person doesn't have to use their laptop in Mc D's.

Why is everyone slating Macdonalds? Cant beat their McFlurrys :-) I'll eat anything when I'm hungry lol!

MrsE_2

I'm disgusted at the amount of people on here that think its fine to damage someones stuff & walk/run off!!!

Reminds me of something that happened years ago.
Two mothers I knew, buth had boys, both had Sega Mega drives.
One boy, broke the other boys Sega Mega drive, (smashed it while throwing a tantrum, not deliberate, but it was one of the many things that got broke)
Did his mother take his off him & give it to the boys whos one he had broken.
Dod she hell, she thought it was too big a punishment to loose his game machine, anyway she had bought it and she would have had to replace it at some point in the future.
So the mother whos Sega had been smashed had to then cough up & buy another one & until she could do so, the boy had to go without.

Disgusting, isn't it?

But not so different to many of the attitudes on here!
So not really surprising.

harryhound

McSpud wrote: »

So... I'm wearing my leather jacket which you accidentally shred into tiny shreds of ex-cow whilst walking past with your cordless lawnmower. Is that considered an excessive status symbol as I could have worn a perfectly servicable Oxfam parka instead?

To be slightly more realistic:
You are walking across my land in your brand new [insert designer name] leather jacket and you gashed it against my barbed wire fence?
I wonder if it is now illegal to have a barbed wire fence?
You have had a liquid lunch; but can I prove it?

You were walking on the Queen's Highway, namely a public footpath - does this make a difference?
You are staggering BUT you are suffering from a medical problem in your ears, so should I have been extra careful in case someone handicapped like you chanced along?

Suppose your jacket was gashed by a vicious thorn tree, overhanging the path?
If I had planted the tree as a substitute for barbed wire, would that make a difference?

I think we both need the help of the lawyer again:D

However I still think that any compensation that I owe to you should be capped to the damage that would be suffered by an "average" person; not a cripple or a film star.

Harry.

Must go for a walk now, wearing my jacket from Oxfam, with the repaired gash, and duck under the fence of the Country Park, where I have carefully bent over the barbs on the wires to gain my own point of access. :beer:

vampiretribble

Al_Vampyre wrote: »

I am stunned by the number of people that seem to think that not at least offering to pay is an acceptable option here.

It's precisely because people aren't willing to accept responsibility for their own actions (and accidents!) that we find ourselves in the ridiculous nanny state situation this country is in.

There is a great deal of difference between accepting responsibility and handing over cash. I couldn't afford a laptop for myself, never mind to replace one for someone else.

Spilling coffee on a laptop isn't a death sentence; take the battery out straightaway, and mop up as much of the coffee as possible, then allow it to dry out. As long as it doesn't happen again, it should be useable by the next day at the latest with little data loss (unless the user hadn't backed up his work for a while, which is then his own fault).

If I'd spilled the coffee, I'd help clean it up, and offer advice on how to stop it from being damaged by the coffee. That's accepting responsibility and an attempt at recompence within my means, which I feel is fair, and if it were reversed, I'd accept that from the spiller too.

MrsE_2

vampiretribble wrote: »

I couldn't afford a laptop for myself, never mind to replace one for someone else.

Just like the boy in my post above.

The "never mind to replace one I've broken."

So replacing one you've broken is second place to you having one.

No it should come before your one.

If you had one & you broke someones, would you had yours over?

After your wording above, no I don't think so.....